Hebrew Roots Bible

Candy is still stuck on Bible talk, so I thought I should add some more comments.

Last night a business colleague and hubby had a short meeting. Turns out, this man is a Christian, and loves to study the Bible. I was surprised, when hubby came home with a new Bible version for me to check out. The colleague was convinced that this new Bible version is more correct than the KJV.

Many people are convinced that there are other Bible translations more correct than the KJV, because some translations are based on older manuscripts which had not been found at the time the KJV was made.

Well, the second I saw the list of manuscripts it was translated from, I could tell that not only is this new translation inferior to the KJV, but it is even inferior to the NIV! I did some research on the man who made this translation, and uncovered some scary information. I also read some passages from this Bible, and found that it is missing whole verses, and portions of verses, just like the other new Bible versions. That new version Holy Bible is not a Holy Bible, but a Holey Bible. It is an incomplete Bible, like all new versions are. WHOLE verses missing in many places. Partial verses missing in literally thousands of places.

I'm curious as to how she read "some passages" from this Bible and determined that there were partial verses missing "in literally thousands of places." Sounds as if she read thousands of passages while she perused it.

Like most new Bible versions, this translation claims to be translated from the "oldest texts," which is a falsity started by Westcott and Hort. These manuscripts may be on the oldest material (because no one bothered reading these texts, so it didn't get worn out.) However, the pure facts lay out that none other but the Massortetic text and the Textus Receptus texts are the oldest, most accurate, and are exact copies of the originals. These great texts are the ones underling the KJV, Geneva, and the other great Bibles of the past.

About a year and a half ago, Candy did a book study on And Understandable History of the Bible. Elena wrote a series at the same time as Candy did, going through the book chapter by chapter. You can find all of the information on Westcott and Hort, and the various manuscripts in Elena's series.

Then, I looked at the very first Biblical prophecy of Jesus, in Genesis 3:15. This new version says that Jesus AND Mary crush the serpent's head together. EXCUSE ME?!!! The real Bible says that JESUS is the redeemer. Mary is not a co-redeemer, she is but a fellow sinner who was chosen as a vessel in whose womb Jesus was incubated. I haven't seen such a botching of Genesis 3:15 since I studied the old Dewey Rheims Bible of Roman Catholicism.

Didn't she just write in the last entry that she never read the Douay-Rheims Bible? I notice she also seems to be back to implying that Mary was not Jesus' biological mother. I would guess she thinks that God placed at already fertilized egg into her womb. But I will stick to the Gen 3:15 issue . . .

Let me refer you to a portion of my Something About Mary post.

Vatican says - "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." - The Roman Catholic version of Genesis 3:15 Reference - The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible

God says - [Note: It is undisputed in Christian circles that Genesis 3:15 is the first biblical Messianic prophecy.] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [the seed of the woman] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

First, it is important to note that Candy quotes from the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is sort of the Catholic King James Bible. We even have Douay-Rheims-only-ists in the Catholic Church. Because we've got something for everyone!

At any rate, the Douay-Rheims Bible is not the currently favored translation. The US Conference of Bishops uses the New American Bible.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

Footnote: The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because "the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

The official Catholic Catechism uses the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV states "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel."

The Catholic Church agrees that this verse is the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. See paragraph #70: Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.

So, I guess if the question is which translation is correct, the Vatican has conceded the point. However the verse is translated, the meaning remains the same.

As an article James Akin wrote for This Rock on the topic of this verse explains, "Therefore, though the she/her and he/his readings of Genesis 3:15 are different, both are true, and Catholics have long recognized this. A footnote provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner, in his revision of the Douay-Rheims version, states, "The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head."

What is this Bible version I'm writing of? It's the HRV - Hebrew Roots Version. Shocking name as well, since much of its Old Testament is not translated from the HEBREW Massoretic texts, but from the Septuagint, which is a severely corrupted Greek translation of the Hebrew texts. This Greek Septuragint is rejected by fundamental Jews. I have a Jewish Bible, and it is translated from the correct HEBREW Massortetic texts, not from a Greek translation.

As I wrote yesterday, she is contradicting her beloved KJV translators when she tears down the Septuagint so severely. The Jewish Encyclopedia calls the Septuagint "the oldest and most important of all the versions" and admits that a major reason why it fell out of favor with Jews was a distrust "accentuated by the fact that it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith." The Jews eventually adopted a version of the Old Testament text based on a manuscript written by Aaron Ben Moses Ben Asher in the early tenth century.

The HRV Bible is a Roman Catholic Bible, and I can prove it. Maybe I'll write up an article about it tonight or tomorrow, depends on my other plans. :-) (Cliff-hanger, anyone?)

I would guess she says this because the guy who translated the Hebrew Roots Version of the Bible claims to have a doctorate from a Catholic seminary. Only, he might not really have the doctorate. And it isn't a real Catholic seminary. If you're interested, you can wade deep into the muddy waters here.

Me, I'm content to chalk it up to another Jesuit plot. Oh, if only he'd claimed to have had a doctorate from Boston College. Then we'd know it was true for sure!